• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    14 hours ago

    She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose

    I’m not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.

    The issue isn’t with her “pro-Israel” policy, it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy. That’s what’s driving the protests.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy

      What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.

      Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be “pro-genocide”…

      And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.

        And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          And who is the current President of the United States?

          Is it Kamala Harris? No?

          So my question stands: one “pro-genocide policy”

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Who is current vice-president?

            Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn’t work.

            Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Then stop serving Trump. You can’t be against any of the things he stands for, including genocide, if you’re trying to swing this election in his favor.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        “Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?”

        “Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?”

        More clear of an endorsement isn’t possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.